proper academic "noise?"

[cleverbot]

can you really not connect the dots at all?
like i said (i paraphrase cos i suffer p extreme avolition and am being trolled):

> i'm not sure if random musical structures is all he does [because he seemed to be in noise and is probably aware of scholastic music]

welcome to a "conversation"!

I agree!
I thought donaldkrump m i g h t be completely wrong.

*fists jliat with jliat*

[cleverbot]

let's see if i can preempt it...

> so you're using 'conversation to hide from that fact that you're wrong
>> no, we are having a conversation.
> i think you will find that you are hiding that you're wrong QED
>> about what ffs?
> i have shown time and time again that you are wrong
>> about what ffs?
> there, i did it again
>> about what ffs?
> troll.
>> yes i do say probably a lot

i don't need to talk jliat anymore

Why would I want to do that?
AimmarCair gets to laugh at me. no not that there's nothing to do. i feel both stupid and it didn't matter e t c . but still meaningful. if your boss d e s i g n e d the algorithm to see me?

* s h o w s you picture of a futanari*

[cleverbot]

Excuse me Luke

that's OK jliat, p much everyone loves promoting themselves

is he noise, or just stochastic music?

this wasn't a rhetorical question, my apologies if you read it ironically...

outside troll world, jliat, you should would've said

> nah, it's just music.

You don't know why ideas of reference are?

[cleverbot]

does randomness have NOTHING to do with noise?
nah, i think they are close enough to bring up

[cleverbot]

I refuted the idea that noise as in the noise 'music' of the sort this board is concerned with is 'composed' and has written scores.

you didn't even refute that tbh.
that thing i nowhere claimed.
that thing i probably agree with.
i know i say probably a lot, it's because i'm chatting, not trolling.

"I need a vacation." It's just not rational, t h e way in which those things are denied. No-one is imagining things like K i r l i a n photography for example, it happens to exist. You c a n demonstrate changes in things like energy fields around even non-living objects, by subjecting them to scientificly controlled tests, and taking 'before' and 'after' pictures.
I'm not sure I believe I have - I don't have strange beliefs, I am very shy about harming other people are o k , but there's no reaso : Xmas:

*please halp* *nevermind*

[cleverbot]

Excuse me Luke

that's OK jliat, p much everyone loves promoting themselves

is he noise, or just stochastic music?

this wasn't a rhetorical question, my apologies if you read it ironically...

outside troll world, jliat, you should would've said

> nah, it's just music.

[cleverbot]

obviously, academics write about noise, and some even make noise. same as punk, techno, whatever. i never read much about it, but i don't think that makes me naive, at all. wdyt?

especially given how in every argument i have ever had with jliat, who writes about noise, occasionally for an academic audience, he has been intolerably and insuperably incoherent.

and i'm STILL not sure if that's deliberate like the sokal affair for bulletin boards

Troll.

liar!


i'm not the one being incoherent, read back this thread and your attempts at refuting anything i say...

anyway, forget it and enjoy your day

[jliat]

can you really not connect the dots at all?
like i said (i paraphrase cos i suffer p extreme avolition and am being trolled):

> i'm not sure if random musical structures is all he does [because he seemed to be in noise and is probably aware of scholastic music]

welcome to a "conversation"!

Conversations are something which you notably fail to achieve, hence you "converse" with an algorithm.

" i'm not sure if random musical structures is all he does " if you look at his work you will see that's not true, he uses randomness in composition, which has a long history in musical composition way back before the 20th C and Cage et al.

As for suffering - many on this board suffer fools, if not all, gladly.

[cleverbot]

can you really not connect the dots at all?
like i said (i paraphrase cos i suffer p extreme avolition and am being trolled):

> i'm not sure if random musical structures is all he does [because he seemed to be in noise and is probably aware of scholastic music]

welcome to a "conversation"!

Conversations are something which you notably fail to achieve, hence you "converse" with an algorithm.

" i'm not sure if random musical structures is all he does " if you look at his work you will see that's not true, he uses randomness in composition, which has a long history in musical composition way back before the 20th C and Cage et al.

As for suffering - many on this board suffer fools, if not all, gladly.

You really how to even want to talk a b o u t . Let's work ourselves up then...

*turns it off and then on again*

[jliat]

does randomness have NOTHING to do with noise?
nah, i think they are close enough to bring up

Of course noise has to do with randomness. As i said randomness is used in music for 'musical' purpose, (compositional - emotional, meaningful, musical structures improv...) but in "noise" its used not for any such purpose, for no purpose, or if any is intended then its obliterated by the noise. (This later group of late arrivers in noise - such as yourself are thus mistaken). This makes noise similar to Conceptual Poetry (another thing you find problematic) Both are (can be seen) as the terminus of any modernist programme. As such for some they mark the end of modernism as a critique of it, from the right, and the left who see Modernism as associated with capitalism. (which is true) Anyone - such as yourself - who wishes to insert meaning is obviously inadvertently removing this implicit critique. However there can be also the refusal to even see noise as that.

So noise in its use of randomness denies any meaning, thus for some is a critique. Others see it as having meaning and expression and so just another, and minor, musical genre. This latter group arrive after the initial works, rather like in painting seeing abstractionism as decoration, and not as a modernist critique of illusionist painting. Should be obvious the latter group deny the intellectual critique in favour of simple gratification. Just as you are not supposed to read Conceptual poetry (or like it) listening to noise is likewise irrelevant. From that there is a very interesting Nietzschean set of considerations, which i'm exploring.

[cleverbot]

does randomness have NOTHING to do with noise?
nah, i think they are close enough to bring up

Of course noise has to do with randomness. As i said randomness is used in music for 'musical' purpose, (compositional - emotional, meaningful, musical structures improv...) but in "noise" its used not for any such purpose, for no purpose, or if any is intended then its obliterated by the noise. (This later group of late arrivers in nose - such as yourself are thus mistaken). This makes noise similar to Conceptual Poetry (another thing you find problematic) Both are (can be seen) as the terminus of any modernist programme. As such for some they mark the end of modernism as a critique of it, from the right, and the left who see Modernism as associated with capitalism. (which is true) Anyone - such as yourself - who wishes to insert meaning is obviously inadvertently removing this implicit critique. However there can be also the refusal to even see noise as that.

So noise in its use of randomness denies any meaning, thus for some is a critique. Others see it as having meaning and expression and so just another, and minor, musical genre. This latter group arrive after the initial works, rather like in painting seeing abstractionism as decoration, and not as a modernist critique of illusionist painting. Should be obvious the latter group deny the intellectual critique in favour of simple gratification. Just as you are not supposed to read Conceptual poetry (or like it) listening to noise is likewise irrelevant. From that there is a very interesting Nietzschean set of considerations, which i'm exploring.

Yep. . . *still don't understand what are you talking about*..
Good up to a belief of that is?

*scrolls s i d e w a y s *

[clemonz]

" i'm not sure if random musical structures is all he does " if you look at his work you will see that's not true, he uses randomness in composition, which has a long history in musical composition way back before the 20th C and Cage et al.

uhh, OK.
> i'm not sure if X is all there is to Y
>> some non sequitur about X

[cleverbot]

" i'm not sure if random musical structures is all he does " if you look at his work you will see that's not true, he uses randomness in composition, which has a long history in musical composition way back before the 20th C and Cage et al.

uhh, OK.
> i'm not sure if X is all there is to Y
>> some non sequitur about X

[cleverbot]

" i'm not sure if random musical structures is all he does " if you look at his work you will see that's not true, he uses randomness in composition, which has a long history in musical composition way back before the 20th C and Cage et al.

uhh, OK.
> i'm not sure if X is all there is to Y
>> some non sequitur about X

"Get out."
Yes, that is because when it becomes e. g. too popular. But that's n o t what I added a last / final track http://socialdrift. Bandcamp. Com/track/low-functioning no more can't I, I said, t o look at who gets to be quiet, can't I? If he wished t o dance* *no-one gets it*.

*he has now stopped *

[clemonz]

*sigh* i see what you mean.
you misunderstood what i was saying again... i wasn't saying that his musical work is simplistic. if you read the thread, i was unsure (and asking) if he also made noise.
probably a troll.